ItsAllAboutTheFit_interior_eBook_v02

Lynton Edwards 79

After laying out the Technical and Personal Fit criteria, I took
him through the format to define the company culture and we
established some standards. It was just the CEO and I who
went through this exercise, so I took everything at his word.

Soon, I found and presented some candidates, one of whom
the client fell in love with. He was in fact a dynamic sales
leader. He was a positive go-getter who had the confidence
and courage to install changes that would improve the busi-
ness. The CEO hired him, and everyone was thrilled — for a
while.

But in this case, it was not my candidate who caused a
problem. As I later learned, the company had, shall we say,
a “difficult” culture. It was fraught with fear as the CEO was,
to put it mildly, “single-minded.” He refused any ideas other
than his own, and blamed others when things went wrong. He
undermined his direct reports. Everyone took sides against
the other. It was a rough and tumble toxic environment. The
CEO had misrepresented the culture. Rather than defining
what the culture was, he had described the culture he wanted,
or he did not understand what the environment was that his
behavior created, or perhaps he was just too embarrassed to
admit it to an outsider.

As a result of the culture, the formidable skills of the hired
candidate could not be effectively employed. Continually
undermined, the new VP became extremely frustrated as he
was dragged down by barriers put in front of any new sales
initiatives he proposed. The company simply didn’t know, or

8 0 It’s All About the Fit!®

would not admit, what their situation was, or what the moti-
vational infrastructure of their culture was. As a result, an
otherwise very capable candidate did not fit into it, and failed.

I am not passing judgment on that culture. I am just say-
ing that you must truthfully define your culture, the good and
bad of it, to find an effective fit. This VP’s failure didn’t have
to occur. Some people are just more effective than others in
such a difficult environment; i.e., they are more resilient and
less sensitive. If I had known the actual situation at that com-
pany, I would have found a much better fit in a person who
could deal with these types of cultural conflicts and still be
highly effective.

Today, when I am taking a client through the question-
naire to define their company culture, I much prefer that the
information and opinions not come exclusively from the CEO.
I suggest that several other executives be involved in the dis-
cussion, as I have found that a CEO may not fully understand
what is going on “beneath” him or her. In the case just dis-
cussed, I relaxed a bit on that policy, which I usually follow,
and I learned my lesson.

As this story shows, it is essential that you examine your
culture and understand it. How does your culture motivate
people? What specific behaviors within the culture of the
company result in a promotion, higher bonuses, recogni-
tion, etc.?

Of course, every organization has a unique culture with
“issues” of some kind. But, regardless of whatever cultural

Lynton Edwards 81

issues you have, you always need to find someone who can
deliver results and work within them. If the alignment is not
strong, the culture will create hurdles and barriers to the can-
didate’s ability to perform at a high level, and you will not see
their top performance. Frustration will follow and results will
be even further affected. Why take the chance?

As with the other areas of the CompleteFIT, you thus
need to assess your culture and honestly admit to the type of
Cultural Fit you should seek between the company and new
executive hire. Consider questions like these:

• Does your culture value progress, diversity,
autonomy . . . or role clarity and conservatism?

• Does your culture value experience-based,
intuitive decisions . . . or analytics and data-driven
decision-making?

• Does your culture value risk-taking and
experimentation . . . or structure, order, and
predictability?

• Does your culture value cooperation and
consensus . . . or top-down authority and
decision-making?

• Does your culture value work-life balance,
collaboration, and cooperation . . . or individual
results, making money, a strong focus on the bottom
line while all else is secondary?

8 2 It’s All About the Fit!®

• Does your culture value public acknowledgement
and visibility . . . or behind-the-scenes recognition
and team acknowledgement?

• Does your culture value self-reliance and personal
responsibility . . . or teamwork, mentoring, and
helping others?

Example of a Cultural Assessment
Let’s look at a specific example of a motivational quality or
characteristic that may determine cultural alignment. Take
AFFILIATION, which refers to whether being “affiliated,”
part of something, motivates a person.

A high score (> 80 percentile) would indicate that the can-
didate highly values:

• Working with others
• Teamwork
• Leading a team
• Recognition of the team over the individual
• Being visible
• Social interaction
• Consensus
• Commitment

Conversely, a low score (< 20 percentile) would indicate
that the candidate highly values:

Lynton Edwards 83

• Working alone

• Individual contribution

• Individual recognition

• A task-oriented environment

• A more formal environment

• Taking the lead as an individual

Which does your company culture value? One or the other,
or a blend? While this may vary somewhat by the specific
position, there is usually an overriding attitude in a company
culture that you can identify and define.

I am often told by a CEO, “Well, I would like to change
our culture and make it more X or Y . . . .” How better to do
that than to hire executives whose motivational profiles are in
alignment with the desired change in culture? A word of warn-
ing however: if you hire a change-maker, you need to support
and stand behind the new executive as the changes try to gain
traction. It won’t work otherwise.

Scoring Candidates on Cultural Fit
I have a format to help my clients define the motivation infra-
structure of their organization and set the contextual stan-
dards. It is a similar process to setting the desired standards
for Personal (position/job) Fit discussed above.

With the Hogan assessments, I can measure ten motiva-
tional elements, of which AFFILIATION is just one. Other

8 4 It’s All About the Fit!®

tests may measure a different number of motivational charac-
teristics, but the value of the assessment is still unquestion-
able. Then, using a 100-point scale, I work with the client to
determine what type of candidate profile is needed for a strong
motivational/cultural alignment on each element.

We can then use a scientific assessment tool to determine
the motivational profile of a candidate and to what degree
that is in alignment with the motivational infrastructure of the
company. Will the candidate fit into the culture? Or will he or
she be constantly swimming against the current?

To create an overall evaluation of candidates who have
taken the assessment, I calculate a variance between the
desired scoring and the candidate’s scoring. Based on the
size of the variance, I can determine whether the alignment
is Strong, Good, Average, or Weak. For instance, let’s say the
client’s desired standard is 70 on one of the criterion. If the
candidate scored a 45 percentile, the variance would be 25; if
a candidate scored a 60, the variance is just 10.

Using the degree of variance, I then assign a category to
each measure for the candidate, as follows.
• Strong Alignment — Variance of <10
• Good Alignment — Variance of 11 to 25

• Average Alignment — Variance of 26 to 40

• Weak Alignment — Variance of > 40

If I see more than three Weak Alignments in a candi-
date, I will almost always eliminate the person from further

Lynton Edwards 85

consideration. That’s how important cultural alignment is, in
my view. A greater than 40-point deviation from the client’s
standards means that the candidate simply may not fit very
well into that element of the culture. The more alignments in
the Strong category, the better fit it will be!

Ethical (Business Values) Alignment
A CEO once told me:

1. I interview based on skill!

2. I hire based on fit!

3. I promote based on performance!

4. I fire based on character!

I could not agree more with this CEO that an executive’s
character as expressed in the person’s ethical values must be
considered in the hiring process. Admittedly, ethics are a dif-
ficult item to measure. I know of no direct assessment tool that
can definitively predict a person’s ethics. However, there are
ways to get at assessing ethical values.

For example, I provide candidates with several problem-
atic real-life business scenarios and ask them to write out what
they would do in each situation. These are subtle dilemmas
that force one to think about choices to be made and which
values must guide a decision. Here are some examples:

1. Our food company has a QC policy of holding
all products for 24 hours after they come off

8 6 It’s All About the Fit!®

the production line before shipping them to our
customers. We have never had a QC problem
that required us not to ship. However, our largest
customer, who hates late shipments, has a truck on
our lot waiting to be loaded and taken away. The
products have not reached the 24-hour mark yet.
The buyer is calling, threatening to pull the business.
What should you do?

2. A fellow employee (and friend) has told you that he/
she plans to quit the company in two months and
start a new job that was offered to him/her by one of
our fiercest competitors. What should you do?

I have numerous such subtle universal business scenarios
that are germane to any executive position, all geared to sur-
facing the ethical thinking and value system of a candidate.
Sometimes the candidate’s answers are black and white, a def-
inite “I’d do X or Y.” Other times, I have had candidates come
up with very creative solutions. On the whole, the candidate’s
answers paint a pretty clear picture of how the person deals
with complex decisions that pit one choice against another,
with each choice indicative of an ethical value that the candi-
date subscribes to.



8 8 It’s All About the Fit!®

“Nice Job.”

Chapter 8

Comparing Finalist
Candidates

A t the end of the process, it comes time to select
a final candidate to hire, right? You have to make
a choice from among the top candidates who have
submitted their resumes, filled out the Experience Matrix
and other documents, gone through the interviews, and taken
the various assessments. So how do you make that final
selection?

I find it very helpful to lay out the strengths, weak-
nesses and degrees of alignment/misalignment of the can-
didates under consideration in comparison to the estab-
lished CompleteFIT standards —Technical/Experience-based,
Personal and Cultural — as well as against each other.

89

9 0 It’s All About the Fit!®

To do this, I create a comprehensive comparative chart
that uses:
• The Y1, Y2, Y3, N measurement for the technical,

experience-based competencies
• The “in” or “not in alignment” scoring for the

personal (job/position), derailment, and cognitive
competencies
• The Strong (S), Good (G), Average (A), or Weak
(W) alignment measurement for the cultural
competencies

This chart is just what you’d expect—an Excel spread-
sheet with columns listing the finalist candidates and rows
listing all of the measurements with the grading I have given
to each candidate, as well as all the predetermined standards
or standard ranges.

Taking into Account Relative
Price-Value Considerations
I also include each candidate’s current cash compensation in
the grid so as to construct a price-value comparison among
candidates as well. What type and/or level of talent and align-
ment would you be getting for your human capital investment?
In general, I have always suggested that companies
allow for a 15%-20% bandwidth around the targeted com-
pensation for an executive position. For example, if the cash

Lynton Edwards 91

compensation target (salary + bonus) is $215K for a position,
I believe that you should be considering candidates seeking
cash compensation of $180K to $250K. This allows you to
make better price-value judgments for the position in ques-
tion. For instance, you may find a great candidate who is above
the $215K target but who is so impressive you may not want
to lose out on hiring him or her. The question then becomes:
could someone making 15% above the targeted compensation
be meaningfully stronger, and as such, worth the extra com-
pensation? Conversely, if you believe that a candidate making
15% less than the targeted compensation is good enough, why
not save some money?

Frankly, in every search that I have conducted, these
price-value lines or delineations become remarkably clear.
I always show clients a reasonable range of price-value candi-
date options, so they can make a good ROI-based hiring deci-
sion. I encourage you to utilize that approach as well.

Example of a Comprehensive Candidate Comparison

Here is an example of the spreadsheet I create to help with
this analysis.

Let’s say we have four candidates being evaluated for the
position of VP Marketing. The target cash compensation has
been set at $215K; $175K in salary and a $40K (20%)bonus.
The next page shows the type of spreadsheet I construct to
help with the analysis and comparison of candidates.

9 2 It’s All About the Fit!®

Candidate Comparison

Current/Most Recent Cash Compensation

Standard Thomas Bain Williams Wilson

Salary $175K $210K $190K $175K $150K

Bonus $40K $40K $25K $35K $30K
(23%) (20%) (20%) (20%) (20%)

Total Cash $215K $250K $215K $210K $180K
Compensation

Technical/Experience-Based Alignment

Thomas Bain Williams Wilson

Industry Primary N Y2 Y3 Y1
Relevance
Secondary Y3 Y2 Y2 Y1
Tertiary Y1 Y2 Y2 Y1
13 2 3
Total Y1 or Y2

Y1 53 2 2

Required Y2 24 5 5
Competencies Y3 00 0 0
N 00 0 0
Total Y1 or Y2  77 7 7

Y1 11 2 0

Preferred Y2 32 2 2
Competencies Y3 11 1 3
N 01 0 0
High Risk Total Y1 or Y2  43 4 2
Derailers [≤ 2]
02 1 4

Lynton Edwards 93

Cognitive Alignment

Thomas Bain Williams Wilson

In Alignment  13 2 1

  Not In Alignment-High 2 0 0 1

Not in Alignment-Low 0 0 1 1

Personal (Job/Position) Alignment

Thomas Bain Williams Wilson

 In Alignment  35 2 1

  Not In Alignment-High 3 0 1 3

Not in Alignment-Low 1 2 4 3

Cultural (Organizational) Alignment

Thomas Bain Williams Wilson

Strong 45 4 5
Good 32 3 4
Average 33 3 1
Weak 00 0 0
Total Strong/Good 77 7 9

Education

Thomas Bain Williams Wilson

Required BA/BS in a Yes Yes Yes Yes
Preferred Business Discipline Yes No No Yes

MBA

9 4 It’s All About the Fit!®

This comparison chart offers a summary and detailed
analysis of each candidate in terms of:
1. Their degree of industry relevance
2. Their strength of experience for the required

experience-based competencies
3. Their strength of experience for the preferred

experience-based competencies
4. Their number of high risk performance derailing

tendencies
5. Their degree of alignment for the cognitive standards

as set by the client
6. Their degree of alignment for the personal standards

as set by the client
7. Their degree of alignment for the cultural standards

as set by the client
All these measures are presented in the context of their
total cash compensation. Of course, you can use this approach
utilizing the candidate’s salary rather than cash compensation.
Let’s study this example. First, we can see that candidate
Wilson clearly has the strongest degree of industry relevancy,
with PRIMARY industry experience (she works for a direct
competitor). And she is the “cheapest” of the four candi-
dates. As it is my presentation policy, all four of the candi-
dates have been graded a Y1 or Y2 in the required competen-
cies. But Wilson is the weakest in terms of Y1-level strength

Lynton Edwards 95

and degree of experience for both the required and preferred
competencies as compared to the other candidates who have
higher numbers. Her personal alignment is also not as good as
the others; while her cultural alignment is on par with them.
In fact, the cultural alignment of all four candidates is about
the same. She does have four high-risk derailers; more than
the other three candidates and above the norm. Conventional
wisdom might say that a candidate with direct industry experi-
ence and who is at the lower end of the acceptable compensa-
tion bandwidth would be the best bet. Let’s not be so sure.

In comparison, candidate Thomas would appear in many
ways to be the strongest candidate in terms of the desired
competencies although his industry experience relevancy,
while within the desired concentric circles, is the weakest.
His industry relevancy is only Tertiary. But the strength and
degree of his experience for the required competencies is
meaningfully higher than the other candidates. And he has
no high-risk performance derailing tendencies. His personal
alignment is good but not the best of the four. But he is the most
expensive of the candidates. Is he worth the extra investment?

Candidate Bain is an interesting candidate. Right on the
cash compensation target, stronger in the required compe-
tencies than Wilson, but not as strong as Thomas. She has
SECONDARY industry relevancy experience. And, she is
very well aligned with the position from a personal fit perspec-
tive, the strongest of the four! She has two high-risk derailers,
which is the norm.

9 6 It’s All About the Fit!®

That leaves candidate Williams, at least at this point in the
search, who would cost you about the same as Bain. He has
the second least amount of PRIMARY industry experience
(but again, enough to be of interest) and only one high risk
derailer. His Y1 scores on the required and preferred compe-
tencies are slightly below Bain, but better than the cheaper
Wilson. And, he ranks third in terms of personal alignment.

As you can see, this analytical approach allows you to
make a detailed comparison between the candidates, examin-
ing them in terms of your criteria and standards to assess how
they align from a CompleteFIT perspective. Such a compara-
tive analysis of the candidates gives you an effective over-
view, but it also allows you to go to a more detailed level of
decision-making information, given that not all the criteria are
equal in terms of importance to you. You can boost the criteria
and competencies that are most important to you and discount
those that are less so, to make this analysis even more useful.

In the end, this informational grid allows both my client
and me to identify the candidate(s) who most closely align
with the blend of experience and competencies needed for
value-building performance in the job as the client defined
them, and who offer the best price-value option.

If you cannot decide on whether or who to hire at this
point, and you feel a need to continue to recruit, assess, and
consider future candidates, this grid is an efficient tool. You
simply remove candidates that have been eliminated from
consideration from the grid, then add any new candidates that

Lynton Edwards 97

have emerged for comparison with the remaining potential
candidates. In this way, you always have a thorough, holistic,
up-to-date chart of all candidates under consideration.

At the end of the process, the candidate that compares and
aligns the most favorably to the elements of comparison that
are the most important to you is most likely your CompleteFIT
choice. That candidate will have the range and blend of the
necessary competencies to increase your company’s value.

Ranking the Candidates in the Example

Given all of the factors that we have just reviewed, how would
you rank these four VP Marketing candidates? Who do you
think should be the preferred candidate? That final determi-
nation is entirely up to you, as it depends on your priorities.

Do you want to know how I would rank the candidates?
I would be more than happy to lay out my ranking and the
reasons for that ranking for your consideration. But that will
take a short discussion. So, please email me at wle@edwards-
search.com and we can set up a short phone call to discuss.

Putting the Art and Science of Recruiting Together

I stated earlier in the book that I agree that recruiting is both
an art and a science. While I have emphasized the critical
value of using proven psychological assessment tools as a sci-
entific element in evaluating candidates, I must add that you
may need to merge back in the art of hiring when you are mak-
ing your final choice.

9 8 It’s All About the Fit!®

While the assessment tools provide valuable data points
in selecting your final candidate and having confidence that
he or she can deliver the strong business performance you
expect, I do not want to suggest that these assessment tools are
the be-all and end-all in terms of assessing a candidate’s abil-
ity to perform. In other words, you should not allow a couple
of “bad” test results to become a deal breaker if the candidate
has nearly everything else you seek.



“It’s the perfect job if self-respect isn’t a factor.”

Chapter 9

Making the Hire:
References, Making the
Offer, and Onboarding

N ow that you have selected your candidate of
choice, it’s time for the next phase of hiring — the
checking of candidate references, the offer of
employment, and assisting the hiree to transition into your
company. Allow me to offer my thoughts on how these steps
work best.

Checking Candidate References and Background
While checking a candidate’s professional references may
or may not provide valuable information in your final deci-
sion-making, I highly recommend that it be done before you
finalize the hiring. The best references by a long shot are the
candidate’s former bosses — the more recent the better. These

101

102 It’s All About the Fit!®

people can offer their thoughts from the same vantage point
that you will have, as the individual’s boss. So whenever pos-
sible, they are worth speaking to.

Of course, there are times when a candidate is still
employed and has gone through the job search in stealth
mode. You clearly cannot ask them to reveal their interest in
another job by asking to speak to their current boss. In that
case, you should not do anything that may put the candidate
in jeopardy.

When I do call references, I probe about SPECIFC infor-
mation gaps about the candidate or any residual areas I may
have of concern as a result of what I have learned in the assess-
ment and conversation process. I ask very pointed questions,
so I can better understand the candidate’s technical strengths
and weaknesses, personal quirks, and motivational drivers.
No softball or generalized questions like, “Tell me about Ms.
Warren. What are Ms. Warren’s weaknesses?” These types of
questions prove useless, in my opinion.

I also try to clarify issues about the candidate that I may
not be 100% certain of. This is your chance to learn final bits
of information about the individual before you decide whether
to make an offer.

Checking the candidate’s educational credentials is a
must at this time. This is an area where fluffing a bit seems
to be most prevalent among candidates. I have no tolerance
for any candidate who has not been 100% truthful, including
that they actually received the degree they claim. Being a few

Lynton Edwards 103

credit hours short does not cut it. Almost receiving a degree
is not receiving a degree. It is the principle that counts! This
type of exaggeration doesn’t occur often, but it does happen.

A full-fledged executive background check is also recom-
mended. There are professional providers who conduct these
checks and they really don’t cost a lot to use ($500 or so). Why
take chances, and better safe than sorry. This is especially
true for positions of financial responsibility, where you abso-
lutely cannot risk missing out on any issues in the candidate’s
background.

I once had a candidate who was made an offer for a CFO
position contingent upon a satisfactory background check. The
background check uncovered several DUIs. The candidate
would have been much better off disclosing that information,
acknowledging a problem, and explaining how it had been
resolved. But he didn’t, and the client would not have known
about it without having done the background check. To make
matters worse, the client was a large wine distribution company.
That candidate was dropped like a hot potato by the client.

The Delicacies of Making the Offer

Sometimes companies may make a mistake when putting
together an offer of employment to a candidate that they wish
to hire. Here’s an example of what I mean. I once had an
assignment to fill a VP Operations position for a food manu-
facturer. I found, evaluated, assessed, and presented a very
good candidate whom the client really liked. When it was time

104 It’s All About the Fit!®

for an offer to be made, I provided a history of the candidate’s
compensation, and it was pretty clear what the offer should
have looked like. However, the CEO did not ask for my input
on the terms of the offer, and so she made one that was ridicu-
lously low, embarrassingly so. What was she thinking?

The candidate was literally offended, even angry at having
wasted his time. He removed himself from consideration . . .
in a huff. I asked the CEO why she did that. She said she was
expecting the candidate to negotiate, so she went in low to
leave room to negotiate up. That was a costly and unnecessary
mistake. I managed to fill the position with another candidate
a month later, but to be honest, the lost candidate was better
than the hired candidate, in my view.

Here’s the point: I believe that companies need to make a
fair offer, right from the start. I disagree with the idea of making
low-ball offers in anticipation of a protracted negotiation and
the possibility of saving a little money. Also, if it is not a reason-
ably fair offer, your professional relationship with the selected
candidate may get off on a sour note. That approach only serves
to illustrate that the company may be misinformed as to current
market rate salaries, is overly cost sensitive, or does not really
appreciate the candidate’s ability to contribute as much as he
or she thought you did. A strong candidate is very likely to be
offended by a low-ball offer, as seen in the story above.

For this reason, I don’t believe that a company and a
properly vetted candidate who find it mutually beneficial to
work together, and who are very excited about that happening,

Lynton Edwards 105

should let a 10%, or even 20%, compensation difference
interfere with the hiring process. Everyone needs to put their
“big boy” or “big girl” pants on and find a compensation pack-
age that will work for both. If nothing else, why not just split
the difference?

At the same time, let me add that I also tell my candidates
that a starting salary and bonus are important but should not be
blown out of proportion at this early stage of their relationship.
If the candidate to be hired is the optimal and CompleteFIT
candidate, he or she will go in and do a top-notch job. Their
performance will help increase the company’s value, which
will be noticed, and the money will come to the hired candi-
date as they prove themselves.

So, a reasonable and fair offer should work from both the
client’s and candidate’s perspectives!

My 9.5 Rule

Let’s say you have found a candidate you really like. He or
she aligns very well with all the hard and soft competencies
you have determined you need and want in that position. But
you find yourself wondering if there may be other candidates
who might be a little better, waiting to be discovered if you
just look a little longer. Should you hire the in-hand current
candidate, or keep looking? If you keep looking, you run the
risk of losing the found candidate.

Here’s my advice if you are waffling. Take all the informa-
tion you have on the candidate (both subjective and objective)

106 It’s All About the Fit!®

and using your good judgment, assign them a score on a
10-point scale. A score of 10 is the perfect candidate (who
doesn’t exist in my view); a score of 1 is a terrible candidate.

In my view any candidate with your rating of 8.5 or higher
should be considered a “qualified” candidate. But, if you
can give the candidate under consideration a 9.5 or higher,
I would attempt to hire without delay. If you cannot find it in
yourself to give the candidate at least a 9.5, you may indeed
want to hold off and keep looking.

Of course, the issue of timing and your sense of urgency
will affect this decision. If the position needs to be filled
ASAP because some important activities are not getting done,
this 9.5 rule is the approach to take. If you have more time to
hire, you may want to keep looking. But please remember, you
will most probably never find a 10! I believe 9.5 is a great
score, indicating that this is the candidate for you.

The Benefits of 1- on -1 Onboarding and Mentoring

Ok, you’ve put out your offer and the candidate has accepted.
The next step is bringing the person in and getting them
started in the job. This is yet another critical juncture in the
recruiting process that you need to do correctly.

A survey by The Institute of Executive Development
found that the “ramp up” time for external executives in a
new position is commonly six to nine months, and only 8% of
those surveyed found pre-employment activities to be effec-
tive. That is why I firmly believe in helping a new executive

Lynton Edwards 107

transition into their new position using a formalized “onboard-
ing” program. Yes, some executives don’t need it, as they are
emotionally intelligent enough to be able to handle the issues,
pressures, and challenges of what is often a major transition in
their career without any support. But in my view, many execu-
tives could benefit from some help in their early months on the
job, but just won’t admit it. The problem is, you don’t usually
know how to predict who needs some help and who does not,
so I simply recommend it for everyone.

The goal of a good onboarding program is to help the tran-
sitioning executive make meaningful contributions ASAP,
that is, to accelerate their assimilation into the new position
and company as rapidly as can happen. The sooner that exec-
utive is paying for himself or herself as a Value-Builder, the
better!

In my estimation, one of the most critical elements of suc-
cessful onboarding is having a mentor — someone who has been
in the type or level of position being filled (or higher) — work
with the transitioning executive. Some companies offer a
new executive an internal person to be the mentor. However,
I don’t think having an internal mentor is the way to go,
because someone on the inside will not be objective and may
reveal information to others in the organization that the new
hire prefers to keep confidential. It is critical that the onboard-
ing be a totally confidential process. The new executive must
feel that he or she can be completely honest and open about
any issues that may block their efficient assimilation into your

108 It’s All About the Fit!®

company. Is their boss a jerk? Are colleagues uncooperative?
Are the executive’s direct reports resistant to following his or
her leadership? Whatever the issues, the person must be able
to have a private, confidential conversation with someone who
can be trusted to listen objectively, not tattletale, and respond
with feedback and recommendations in an equally honest way.

For this reason, I recommend that you bring in an outside
professional mentor to work with the new hire one-on-one, and
the best choice is someone who knows that role. A great men-
tor must be able to understand the challenges and responsi-
bilities of the specific position, and work with the executive
to give guidance and advice as how to not stub their toe. For
example, someone who has already been a CFO or CEO/COO
is better equipped to mentor and onboard a new CFO than
a generic professional coach with mid-level business experi-
ence (usually HR- or OD-based), as they have had first-hand
experience in what the new hire may face. The coaching com-
munity will probably cry foul at that statement, but that’s my
professional opinion.

The most common issue that seems to come up in the
onboarding sessions that I conduct for the executives that I
place is the executive’s relationship with the new boss. Such
problems can usually be broken down into a few key areas:

• Is communication effective between the new execu-
tive and their boss? What is the communicative style
of the boss? It is the job of the new executive, not the

Lynton Edwards 109

boss, to make sure that communication is effective.
The executive must “manage” to the communication
style of the boss and make it work.

• Are the boss and the new executive on the same page
strategically and tactically speaking? If the two of
them were asked to list the short- and long-term goals
for the new executive, would they cite the same list?
If not, something has gone wrong and there could pos-
sibly be surprises in terms of performance evaluation
later on.

• Is there agreement as to the current state of the new
executive’s situation? Is there a shared understanding
of what resources will be needed to achieve goals, and
the timing and priority of those goals?

Having a shared and mutual understanding on all these
issues is critical to ensuring the new executive has every
chance to become the Value-Builder you expected. But in my
view, it is up to the new executive, not the boss, to ensure that
these problems are resolved. No matter the issue or its level of
difficulty, there are techniques that can help.

I have also found that onboarding is most effective when
it is based upon the hiree’s emotional intelligence. Emotional
Intelligence (EQi) or Emotional Quotient (EQ) is the ability
to be aware of and manage one’s own and other’s emotions.
The new executive has to interact with others effectively as
a leader and team player; with resilience, the ability to listen

110 It’s All About the Fit!®

and reflect, impulse control, the ability to persuade, etc.
As such, being emotionally intelligent is critical.

Understanding and developing emotional intelligence has
multiple benefits. It allows a new executive to recognize, and
even foresee, where they may be vulnerable in their transition.
If you know where a landmine is, you probably won’t step on
it. Plus, a person’s emotional intelligence can be improved,
once they understand their profile and what they need to focus
on. I believe there is also a correlation between emotional
intelligence and upward mobility, so helping an executive
improve his or her emotional intelligence can lead to increas-
ingly higher senior leadership positions.

Additional topics for discussion with the executive during
onboarding include:

• What has made the executive successful in the past?
Will those qualities work in the new position as
well or are there soft spots that need attention and
refinement?

• How can he or she understand the culture of the new
employer as quickly as possible so as to be effective
and a contributor in it?

• How can he or she get some early wins to create
credibility and momentum?

• What is the hired executive’s learning agenda, and
how might it be accelerated?

• How can lurking surprises be identified?

Lynton Edwards 111

In the course of my years as a successful executive
recruiter, I have witnessed an effective onboarding process
have a meaningful positive impact on a new executive’s suc-
cess. I am trained as a Master Career Coach and I offer an
Emotional Intelligence-based onboarding program to the
executives that I place (for free), using either the Hogan EQ
or Bar-On EQ-i® process. Both of these, or similar tools that
measure emotional intelligence, will offer you, and more
importantly the new executive, valuable information.

Using the Insights Gained about the Placed Executive

One of the benefits of using scientifically validated personal-
ity assessment tools to help in the selection process is that
you can use this same information to learn how to effectively
manage and motivate the newly placed executive. Here are a
few examples of what I learned from the scientific assessments
about a candidate who was hired by my client and that I offered
to my client as another step in achieving a great placement.

• Mr. Smith is unusually self-confident. It will help to
coach him to listen to others. Remind him to learn
from his mistakes. Unless the role is as an individual
contributor, he will need to function as an effective
team player to be successful.

• Mr. Jones is very conscientious. I suggest you coach
him to not micro-manage his team and to put a priority
on developing his direct reports professionally. Work

112 It’s All About the Fit!®

towards helping him become an effective delegator.
Put this on the list of criteria for how you will be eval-
uating him.

• Ms. Harper is curious and imaginative. She could
become bored with routine tasks. Be sure to continu-
ally offer her new challenges and assignments. You
may be familiar with the venerated theory of people
management: Feed the lions, ride the horses, shoot the
dogs! Feed this lion.

As these examples show, any scientifically-based infor-
mation you have gathered during the recruitment process can
be put to use to your advantage. Help your important new hire
to reach their full potential in a timely manner. You are their
boss. That is your job.



“I’ve decided to fill the job internally.
I just don’t like dealing with headhunters.”

Epilogue

Should You Use a Recruiter?

O f course, you should!
While I have explained my entire methodology
of recruiting and hiring in this book, including the
CompleteFIT process, I nevertheless want to offer my reasons
for suggesting that hiring a professional recruiter to do this
may be more effective for most companies.

First, for any significant investment that you make that
can make a meaningful difference to your company’s perfor-
mance and valuation, using an expert to identify, assess, and
evaluate the options — in this case, candidates — is a wise
choice. Expertise matters in recruiting as much as it does in
any business investment. Would you select and implement a
new ERP system without some expert advice? Would you raise
capital without some expert financial advice? It’s the same

115

116 It’s All About the Fit!®

logic. You really don’t want to screw it up, and if you do, it can
be very costly.

Second, if you are going to conduct a thorough search,
who will handle the workload? When a client hires me, I will
usually have 600-1,000 resumes pass by my eyes for a single
executive search assignment. And that is just the start of what
must be done. If you are searching for a Director of Finance,
for example, is your CFO going to go through these hundreds
of resumes, screen them for preliminary interest and further
interviews, and so on? That is not what he or she was hired
to do. Or will an HR manager do the screening? If so, are
they really the best judge of talent for a Director of Finance
(or other key executive positions) — or are they just a box
checker without effective experience in assessing the compe-
tencies needed for each specific position. They probably don’t
even know what GAAP means.

In contrast, using a human capital expert will significantly
help you in hiring the optimal candidate. A recruiter (with
a background like mine as a CEO, board member, and cor-
porate executive, for example) understands the critical chal-
lenges of executive positions in this very competitive world.
A professional recruiter can offer you many benefits. They
are more practiced and skilled at locating passive candidates
(those not looking for a job) who might be interested in a new
job. They are usually better interviewers. They should also
be able to offer advice on how to nail down the detailed stan-
dards you want for a specific position; and ideally have the
ability to administer and interpret scientific assessment tools.

A professional recruiter will also have a strong background
in selecting potential candidates and having effective conver-
sations with them to get at their strengths and weaknesses,
resulting in the ability to select a Value-Builder from a crowd
of just good or average performers.

Types of Recruiters

There are basically two types of recruiters: retained or contin-
gent. What a retained recruiter does is not the same as what
a contingent recruiter does. Their business models differ.
A retained recruiter is hired exclusively by a company to
locate, assess, and assist in hiring for a specific position the
company needs to fill. They are paid as they go so they are
fully committed to fill the position. Period. I, as a retained
recruiter, have placed several hundred executives and, at
least at this point in time, I have never been unsuccessful in
completing the assignment (knock wood!).

A contingent recruiter goes out and identifies a wide range of
people who might consider or are looking for a new job, and then
tries to match those people to jobs being advertised or that they
become aware of. A contingent recruiter is more of a clearing-
house of resumes, and does not work under an exclusive assign-
ment. His or her fees are contingent on matching a job open-
ing with a candidate in his inventory. Accordingly, a contingent
recruiter will throw as many resumes at a client as they can, hop-
ing that one may stick. No offense to my contingent colleagues,
but their commitment to the client to fill the position in question
is undeniably not as strong as that of a retained recruiter.

118 It’s All About the Fit!®

Some recruiters say they do both, but I believe that usu-
ally means that they don’t do either very well. So make sure
you understand what type of recruiter you are dealing with.

If you want someone to just be a source of resumes, with-
out offering much value in terms of effectively screening can-
didates, carefully assessing their professional and personal
qualities, and selecting the best options, then a contingent
recruiter would work for you. But if you are looking for more
services, at a higher level of commitment to ensure you find
the right person, then you probably need a retained recruiter.
In my experience, companies normally use retained recruiters
for key executive positions, which I define as executive roles
with a salary of $125K or more for a smaller company. Why?

• A retained recruiter is better equipped to help a com-
pany define exactly the needs of the position to be
filled.

• A retained recruiter is much more experienced in
understanding the roles of executives and spends con-
siderably more time assessing and vetting candidates
for their clients.

• Candidates (especially passive candidates) seem more
impressed with the commitment of the client and the
position to be filled if a retained recruiter is being used.

There is also a significant benefit that retained recruiters
provide due to the intensity and effectiveness of their vetting

Lynton Edwards 119

processes. That has to do with the length of the recruiter’s
guarantee. While a contingent recruiter will usually offer
a ninety-day guarantee — that is, if the candidate is fired
or quits within 90 days from the start date, the commission
paid the recruiter is returned to the client company. But
just ninety days? That is simply a poor hire with negative
consequences.

A retained recruiter usually offers a one-year replacement
guarantee to back up his or her work that the right candidate
has been chosen. I go beyond that, offering a two-year replace-
ment guarantee, as I have total confidence in my CompleteFIT
executive search process.

If I sound biased, I am. There is a role for both contingent
and retained recruiters. But they are not interchangeable.

Getting Status Reports on the Recruitment

No matter what type of recruiter you use, hold their feet to the
fire by requesting regular updates and status reports. What
have they been doing, how is it going, what are they learn-
ing? Every two weeks, I issue a written status report such as
that shown on the next page for every executive search that I
conduct. It contains key metrics that measure candidate inter-
est levels, where candidates are in the pipeline/process, how
many candidates are under active consideration in the queue,
and other information that indicates the health of the search
assignment. It also contains any key point that I believe the
client would find informative.

120 It’s All About the Fit!®

Status Report 1.1.2018*

C om pa n y A —  P r es ident

e D WARDS EXE C U T I V E SEARC H (EES)

Executive Search Statistics

# C a n didat e s — P r o a ctiv e S o u r c i n g

• Contacted by EES 244

• Responded to EES 132 (54%)

No Candidate Interest 98 (74%)

• Candidates with Interest 34

Removed Themselves 8

Rejected by EES 16

Rejected by Client 1

Pending with EES (Q) 7

Pending with Client (Q) 2

# C a n didat e s — RE a ctiv e S ou r c i n g

• Applicants 753

• Candidates of Preliminary EES Interest 53 (7%)

Removed Themselves 10

Rejected by EES 30

Rejected by Client 2

Pending with EES (Q) 9

Pending with Client (Q) 2

Candidates Currently Under
Consideration = 20 in the Queue (Q)

*Note how the statistics are segregated by Passive Candidates and Reactive
Candidates /Applicants.

Lynton Edwards 121

Stat u s S u m m a ry

• The numbers are healthy . . . 997 candidates have
been in contact with EES, which is a very positive
indicator. 244 passive candidates have been identi-
fied and contacted by EES. 753 reactive candidates
have applied for the position.

• However, the ratios that measure interest are below
the norm.
m 54% of contacted passive candidates responded
to EES vs. a norm of 60%.
m 74% of those responding had initial interest vs.
a norm of 75%.
m Of the reactive candidates/applicants, 7% were
of preliminary EES interest vs. a norm of 10%.

• 87 candidates have been in the EES assessment
pipeline.

• Currently, there are 20 candidates under active con-
sideration (in the Queue).

• 4 candidates have been presented to the client by
EES with a recommendation for an interview. Their
disposition is pending.

• Of the 16 candidates pending with EES, 4 have
Hogan results pending and, if there are no issues,
will be presented by COB on Thursday.

122 It’s All About the Fit!®

Thank You for Your Consideration!

I made my first candidate presentation to a client when I was
an EVP for a top-five executive search firm, before I started
my own firm. Three of us went to see the CEO to present can-
didates for an SVP Supply Chain position. At the end of the
presentation of candidates, the CEO asked us to rank the can-
didates. So I did. I told him, here’s #1 and why, here’s #2 and
why, and so forth.

As we left the meeting, my colleagues told me never to
rank candidates for a client like I had just done, because if
the CEO didn’t agree, he may not proceed to hire any of them.
That was my first inkling that I needed to be on my own. After
all, we are being paid a lot of money, and I think the CEO
deserved an answer and straightforward, professional advice.

Hiring a Value-Builder is not an academic exercise. It is
among the most important decisions any company can make
if they are aiming to create a successful leadership team.
Hiring the wrong person will have consequences that can take
a financial and psychological toll on the firm. Even hiring an
OK performer will have an opportunity cost.

The integrity of the CompleteFIT process must be pre-
served. I am adamant that as a retained recruiter, I am working
to find THE best candidate for my clients — a Value-Builder.
And, I believe that a Value-Builder needs to be a CompleteFIT.
Not just a semi-CompleteFIT. This requires commitment and
hard work. It requires the gravitas to offer good advice and

Lynton Edwards 123

well-reasoned recommendations to the client, and as I have
said, it requires an effective process.

That is why I take my role as seriously as possible, know-
ing that my effort to help clients hire a candidate who is truly a
CompleteFIT will produce long-term benefits and make their
firm’s value grow. Placing a Value-Builder into a client com-
pany is a very rewarding feeling for me. When my clients’
businesses do well, my business does well. I believe that what
I have discussed in this book is relevant to all companies. But,
to me, it is particularly important to small- to mid-size compa-
nies where one executive can make a larger impact.

I wish you every success. I wish you a CompleteFIT. If
you need help in finding and hiring one, I can be reached at
312-643-8551.

“Your job description is fairly simple:
Stay in your cubicle and try not to make things worse.”

Appendix A

Example of a Confidential Position Specification
t h e c o m p a n y : Company A (a pseudonym)
p o s i t i o n t i t le : Senior Vice President of Sales
& Marketing
r e p o r t i n g t o : President
l o c a t i o n : Atlanta GA
c o n t e n t s : I. Introduction
II. Position Scope &
Responsibilities
III. Experience-Based Competencies-
Required/Preferred
IV. Executive Search Process
V. Education Required/Preferred

125

126 It’s All About the Fit!®

I . IN T RODU C T ION

Our client, Company A is a designer and fabricator of inte-
grated-technology, steel-based products (cabinets, lockers,
etc.) sold into a variety of B2B markets.

Located in Atlanta GA, it is an industry leader and global
supplier of designed and manufactured turnkey security lock-
ers for several end user markets including amusement parks,
athletic and recreational facilities, post offices, etc.

In 2014, Company A decided to expand its product line
to include additional metal fabricated products and acquired
Company B, a recognized and long standing banner name of
quality and precision in the security/storage locker and mailbox
industry. Company B sells into a wide array of B2B markets.

The combined entity offers synergistic opportunities
in terms of cross selling, new products and operational
efficiencies.

Company A is publicly traded on NASDAQ.
For more information, go to . . . www.companyA.com

II . POSI T ION S C OPE & RESPONSI B ILITIES

We are looking for a Sales/Marketing Leader, who has suc-
cessfully grown the revenues of a business unit into B2B-type
markets . . . . that is significant, not just marginal revenue
growth.

The ideal candidate will have the proven ability to:

• As an individual contributor — identify and close on
sales opportunities

Lynton Edwards 127

• As the chief sales officer — build/reconfigure and lead
a sales team; and, improve/reconfigure the Company’s
selling and sales support processes

• As the chief marketing officer — determine, construct
and implement the optimal marketing strategy (prod-
uct positioning, creation of a value proposition and
competitive differentiation, etc.) for the Company’s
product offerings
This position has sales and management responsibilities

for the complete range of Company A’s products, both cabinets
and customized electronic locker solutions.

We are looking for a Sales/Marketing Leader who can:
1. Identify market and sales opportunities
2. Evaluate revenue and profitability potential; select

which opportunities to pursue and set revenue goals
3. Assist in the development of value-added products

relevant to the opportunity
4. Develop an effective marketing and selling strategy

to successfully penetrate the markets to be served
5. Lead Company A’s sales and marketing activities to

achieve the revenue goals

III. EXPERIEN C E - B ASED C OMPE T EN C IES

Industry Relevancy

Primary Industry Experience: Manufacturer of steel-based secu-
rity cabinets, lockers, containers, etc. sold into B2B markets

128 It’s All About the Fit!®

Secondary Industry Experience: Manufacturer of any type
of security products sold into B2B markets

Tertiary Industry Experience: Manufacturer of fabricated
steel-based products sold into B2B markets

Experience-Based Competencies

Required Experience:

• In a sales leadership/management position selling
into B2B markets for 10+ years

• In a sales leadership/management position within
the Primary, Secondary and/or Tertiary Industry
Relevancy definitions above, to YOY double-digit
revenue growth

• In direct key account presentation (selling) and the
closing of the sale

• In reinvigorating the sales team and selling efforts.
From order taker to disciplined business developer

• In building/motivating a highly effective sales team

• In identifying and assessing sales and marketing
opportunities:

m Existing products to new customers

m New products to existing customers, utilizing
Company A’s capabilities

m New products to new customers, utilizing Company
A’s capabilities.